I believe Marijuana to be beneficial to society for the following reasons:

1. It is a significantly healthier alternative to cigarettes [1] by not having nearly as many adverse effects on your health. According to WebMD [2] Marijuana’s known side effects put it into the category of “likely safe” only because sufficient and extensive testing has not been done. Compare these side effects to cigarettes which side effects have been proven extensively to cause many forms of cancer, decreased lung capacity, heart and weight issues and many other issues. [3]

2. It has medicinal purposes as opposed to alcohol and cigarettes. Some examples are relief of muscle spasms, relief of chronic pain, reduction in interlobular pressure inside the eye, and suppression of nausea. [4]

3. The government could use it as a revenue instead of an expense by persecuting it as a criminal offense. Estimates put the revenue somewhere in the tens to hundreds of billion dollars. [5]

4. According to studies it is a physically non-habit forming drug unlike alcohol and cigarettes with an extremely low percentage of people developing mental dependence. [6]

My opponent has offered a very flimsy opening argument for Marijuana's benefit to society. My opening argument provides several reasons why it is instead a detriment to society.

1st Being a healthier alternative to cigarettes is like saying it is the better of two evils. This is a poor reason to legalize a drug which has many more cons than pros. I don't dispute the fact that Marijuana maybe healthier on your lungs but as WebMD also says "However, extreme sleepiness and other central nervous system effects make cannabinoids undesirable as painkillers." This goes to my 2nd argument that the symptoms of Marijuana while not dangerous like extreme exhaustion will inhibit peoples ability to be productive members of society.

2nd I don't dispute marijuana may have legitimate medical purposes but it also has negative effects. Take pain relief for example we already have prescription drugs like codeine for people who experience chronic pain. So what benefit is legalizing marijuana and as people already abuse the many prescription drugs out there the same will happen if we legalize marijuana for all the people who use it legitimately many won't.

3rd The government already brings in enough revenue[1]. We shouldn't legalize a detrimental drug so they can collect more of our hard earned money.

4th True its not as addictive as some drugs but this is all relative. Nine percent of marijuana users become not just addicted but dependent on it. This increases if users are teenagers and elevates rates of other drug use[2].

1. "Being a healthier alternative to cigarettes is like saying it is the better of two evils."

My point being, it is healthier than something currently legal.

2. "I don't dispute marijuana may have legitimate medical purposes but it also has negative effects. Take pain relief for example we already have prescription drugs like codeine for people who experience chronic pain."

A key difference being that codeine is massively addictive [1]. Also weed isn't used for acute pain that codeine would be used for. Eg. You wouldn't use a sledgehammer to hang a picture. You use it to dull chronic pain as in recovering from cancer.

3. "The government already brings in enough revenue. We shouldn't legalize a detrimental drug so they can collect more of our hard earned money."

My friend, turning an expense into revenue is a businesses' (or government's) wet dream. All that money you were losing you are now collecting as income. Also [2] and [3]

Reasons for voting decision: Just kind of sad how this debate went, to be honest. Pro, you have to do more work in response, both directly to Con's case and in support of your own. I never see a response to the gateway drug argument. I see some mitigation on addiction and harms, but not enough. Medicinal purposes simply aren't sufficient, and increased revenue for the government doesn't come up as a major voter by the end of the round. Really, what seems to matter most is health harms, and in this Con is winning. Pro could have tacked that back easily with his "cigarettes are worse" argument, but I never see why that matters. Why should a government not be hypocritical when it comes to legalizing drugs? As I don't know the answer to that question, Con easily takes the round.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.